Just for you DimPrawn

[d000hg]

Here you go, should give you something to do rather than work.

Here's a friendly version without many words.

You're welcome.

[MPwannadecentincome]

For 800,000 years they THINK CO2 levels have been below that line on the basis of theories formed around evidence in ice core samples that have been obtained.

They MIGHT be wrong.

[d000hg]

For millions of years they THINK evolution has taken place on the basis of theories formed around evidence in fossil samples that have been obtained.

They MIGHT be wrong.

How seriously would you take a Young Earther who used such an argument? Hardly any science can be "proved"

[threaded]

For 800,000 years they THINK CO2 levels have been below that line on the basis of theories formed around evidence in ice core samples that have been obtained.

They MIGHT be wrong.

My problem with it is that when CO2 has been measured from the samples and gives a result that is above that line they've thrown the data away, calling it 'outlier'.

[Sysman]

My problem with it is that when CO2 has been measured from the samples and gives a result that is above that line they've thrown the data away, calling it 'outlier'.

Which was fine for A level Physics when you were trying to reproduce some famous experiment.

[threaded]

Which was fine for A level Physics when you were trying to reproduce some famous experiment.

Then they also passed the data through a smoothing function, something like a 3rd order polynomial which creates a bathtub looking curve and then thrown the zero end (tap end) away by saying they only go back 800k years, i.e. if they went back 1 mil.years the curve spikes back up (and actually higher than 'our' end)

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Anyway, things are certainly hotting up for AGW camp in the US, there's talk of a congressional committee and subpoenas. Won't it be fun if that 'Prof.' (who actually hasn't resigned, even though the press says he has) gets extradited to face his own global warming in the showers with Bubba...

[EternalOptimist]

Then they also passed the data through a smoothing function, something like a 3rd order polynomial which creates a bathtub looking curve and then thrown the zero end (tap end) away by saying they only go back 800k years, i.e. if they went back 1 mil.years the curve spikes back up (and actually higher than 'our' end)

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Anyway, things are certainly hotting up for AGW camp in the US, there's talk of a congressional committee and subpoenas. Won't it be fun if that 'Prof.' (who actually hasn't resigned, even though the press says he has) gets extradited to face his own global warming in the showers with Bubba...

Professor Peter Jones has stood down for the duration of an investigation, Peter Liss has taken over. There is a second scandal within the IPCC, one of the emails had asked that the rules on what constituted a peer review be changed, in order to shut out a couple of papers he(Jones) didn'd like. The head of the IPCC said, in a roundabout way, its ok to say this and ask the question, just don't get caught, dont put anything down in writing.

politics in science

[Spacecadet]

I noticed that they have links to a couple of spreadsheets on that bbc news article.

Dataset 1 link conatins the "last 800,000" years of data

The columns are described thusly:
Column 1 Years before 2000 AD
Column 2 Temperature anomaly, degrees Celcius, from average of last 1000 years, derived from delta Deuterium
Column 3 delta Deuterium, parts per thousand - stable isotope ration of water molecules, used to derive temperature
Column 4 Carbon dioxide - parts per million

Dataset 2 link contains the last 150 years of data

Temperature in the second dataset is described as:
Temperature - anomaly compared to the mean 1961-1990 (according to CRU). Second temperature column is smoothed by CRU.

So in neither dataset do we get the actual temperature.
Both datasets give us temperature "anomaly" but in each case with a different average temperature upon with the anomaly is based.

AND
Dataset 1 gives the data not for every year but for every 1000 years i.e. 800 data points
Dataset 2 only gives us 150 years of data

2 completely different scales of data which can not be compared. It would be like trying to recognise a table (dataset 1 - 800,000 years) from a microscope picture showing the detail of the wood grain

And the climate scaremongers accuse the sceptics of cherry picking data

[DimPrawn]

sasguru will be along shortly to add his great intellect to the discussion, ie. a one liner to call you a retarded cretin.

HTH

[Doggy Styles]

sasguru will be along shortly to add his great intellect to the discussion, ie. a one liner to call you a retarded cretin.

HTH

Who on here has collected the most sas cretin badges?